New to LexisNexis Communities?

SAN FRANCISCO - In an Aug. 14 ruling, a California federal judge enjoined LinkedIn Corp. from denying a data analytics company access to publicly available information on its professional social networking site, finding no support for LinkedIn's argument that the access violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 3:17-cv-03301, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129088).

SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 14 denied a motion to substitute the lead plaintiff in a class lawsuit over the labeling on certain Frito-Lay North America Inc. products, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was good cause for allowing the substitution more than three years after the deadline for adding plaintiffs (Markus Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., No. 12-1586, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129053).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 9 ruled that a class lawsuit by retail "key carrier" employees who claim that they were denied rest and meal breaks because they were always on call belongs in state court because the defendant failed to meet its heightened burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (Eric Farley, et al. v. Dolgen California LLC, et al., No. 16-2501, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126540).

CHICAGO - Two groups of consumers, both represented by Hagens Berman, filed two separate class complaints, one in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Aug. 7 and the second in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 9, accusing CVS Health Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., respectively, of fraudulently driving up the cost of generic drugs (Megan Schultz, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 17-359, D. R.I., David Grabstald, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 17-5789, N.D. Ill.).

SAN DIEGO - After finding that the manager of a nightclub development company fraudulently induced an investor into investing money for the development of a new club, a California federal judge on Aug. 7 refused to dismiss the investor's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and securities fraud (Matthias Mueller v. San Diego Entertainment Partners LLC, et al., No. 16cv2997, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643).

SAN FRANCISCO - After finding that a borrower sufficiently alleged facts to support his claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and wrongful foreclosure against two lenders, a California appeals panel on Aug. 2 reversed a decision granting dismissal of his claims against them and remanded the case for further proceedings (Ronald Cupp v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., Nos. A148011, A148507, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5306).

LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on July 31 remanded a case in which the People of the State of California assert claims for violation of California's unfair competition law against numerous pharmaceutical companies and drugmakers, finding that the real plaintiff in the case is the state of California and that the case should be decided in state court (People of the State of California v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., No. 17-00923, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121067).

SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 1 denied a borrower's request for a temporary restraining order enjoining a foreclosure on her property, finding that she failed to show that she would likely succeed on the merits (Jeff Velasquez v. Wells Fargo, N.A., et al., No. 17-cv-03868, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120915).

SAN DIEGO - After finding that wages provided for under California labor code are considered wages and constitute restitution, a California federal judge on July 31 refused to dismiss a claim for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) asserted by a group of ambulance and emergency medical technicians against their employers (Rueben Calleros, et al. v. Rural Metro of San Diego Inc., No. 17-cv-00686, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120119).

FRESNO, Calif. - A casino consultant's state law claims that it suffered damages when an Indian tribe failed to obtain federal approval of a management agreement between the parties cannot be litigated in federal court because they do not implicate a federal law, a federal judge in California held July 27 in granting the tribe's motion to dismiss the consultant's complaint (Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group, LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00394, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118065).

SAN FRANCISCO - A group of Seagate Technology LLC employees on July 27 moved for preliminary approval of a putative class action over a 2016 phishing incident at the company that exposed their personally identifiable information (PII), asking a California federal court to greenlight relief in the form of restitution and identity theft protection, potentially valued at $42 million (Everett Castillo, et al. v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01958, N.D. Calif.).

CHARLESTON, S.C. - After finding that defendants in a bankruptcy court adversary proceeding waived their right to a jury trial and that they may be engaging in forum shopping, a South Carolina federal judge on July 25 refused to withdraw a consolidated case in which an insurer asserts causes of action for fraud and violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) from the bankruptcy court (Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Thomas Spry, et al., No. 2:15-cv-01663, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115610).

LOS ANGELES - After finding that a borrower's claims for wrongful foreclosure and fraud were not sufficiently pleaded, a California federal judge on July 24 granted a motion filed by lenders to dismiss claims against them with leave to amend and refused to remand the case to a California state court (Jose A. Miranda v. SCME Mortgage Bankers Inc., et al., No. 17-03153, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115311).

SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on July 24 set aside a default ruling entered against the chief operating officer of an apparel company that allegedly infringed on another entity's trademark in violation of federal trademark law and California's unfair competition law (UCL), finding that setting aside the default ruling would not prejudice the owner of the mark (Lights Out Holdings LLC v. Lights Out Apparel LLC, et al., No.16cv2195, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115326).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California federal judge on July 21 granted a motion to dismiss the majority of the claims asserted against the owners and managers of several apartment complexes in relation to additional fees, but found that tenants sufficiently alleged that additional charges for laundry machines could constitute impermissible rent because they were not listed as an "appliance" in housing assistance payment contracts (HAP contracts) (Denika Terry, et al. v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, et al., No. 2:15-CV-00799, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114301).

RIVERSIDE, Calif. - After finding that Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs are considered tax assessments and are not regulated by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and another federal law, a California federal judge on July 17 granted a motion filed by several government entities and a company to dismiss a case against them, but remanded claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) to state court (In re Hero Loan Litigation, No. 16-02478, No. 16-02491, No. 16-08943, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111771).

TULSA, Okla. - An Oklahoma federal judge on July 14 sent a class complaint alleging unfair business practices back to California for reconsideration of a business contract's forum-selection clause, noting that the case presents an "extraordinary situation where a transfer order is clearly erroneous and to let it stand would work manifest injustice" (S & J Rentals, d/b/a Twin Cities Equipment Rentals v. Hilti, Inc., No. 17-159, N.D. Okla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109247).

SAN FRANCISCO - After finding that borrowers failed to show that two banks violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) or wrongfully foreclosed on their property, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 13 affirmed a district court's dismissal of their complaint (Brock Williams, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 15-17335, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12565).